Tim Blair refers to me and other signatories of the Kyoto petition as “alleged economists”. This is an interesting epithet to be applied to, among others 30 professors of economics. If Tim wants to say we are bad or mediocre economists, let him say so, but terms like “alleged” are silly, just like the use of “pseudo-intellectual” as a derogatory term for “intellectual”. The implication is, of course, that somewhere out there are “real’ economists and intellectuals, whose rigorous analysis invariably agrees with the uninformed prejudices of people like Tim. Or should I say- the uninformed prejudices of “people” like “Tim”?

For those interested in following up this issue, I’ve linked to a counterpetition being organised by my colleague Alex Robson, a letter from Alan Moran of the IPA supporting the counterpetition, and an article on approaches that would permit us to meet our Kyoto commitments at low cost and in some cases with a net benefit. Moran and Robson take great exception to the suggestion that there are policies that would both reduce emissions and improve the economy. As I’ve already pointed out, reducing subsidies to the aluminium industry is a case in point. Since Moran is a professional advocate for fossil-fuel intensive industry, he’s unlikely to be impressed by this argument, but other economists thinking of signing the counterpetition might want to ponder it.